What is your definition of photography ?

[radiant]

You might want to suggest the same thing to mr glass

I thought Sirius Glass is a bot that is designed to insult people here? No?

 

[removed account4]

I thought Sirius Glass is a bot that is designed to insult people here? No?

maybe IDK.... he has had some lovely posts though
time to trade him for a newer model with fewer miles ?
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/one-problem-with-g-a-s.50170/#post-727978

 

[guangong]

Photography is about taking a photograph of something as it is. If one changes it to something else, that is NOT photography.

Stating the obvious will get you nowhere on this thread.
Ditto!

 

[removed account4]

Stating the obvious will get you nowhere on this thread.
Ditto!

guangong. nothing is obvious that is why I asked for definitions... and I was hoping for a normal definition
not a what's its not definition...
with your and mr glass' definition I have questions which I have asked before and got no answer

is a photogram a photograph ?
what about a tinted ambrotype or tintype that is in a locket from 1870?
or a hand tinted daguerreotype or one of jerry ulesmann's images?
what about the color images of Russia in the early 1900s, or autochromes?
or a one of Andrew O'Neil's gum prints or Vaugh's carbon prints?
or a black and white image from tri x or tmx100 processed in xtol taken on a Hasselblad with a 150 Zeiss lens?

because the act of photography/converting all of these things to picture-form manipulates and changes them to something else.
and by your definitions none of these things are photographs .....
but according to philosophers, galleries, museums, teachers and historians of photography, and the people who make these images all of them have been considered photographs.

what about this is obvious...

 

[removedacct1]

You might want to suggest the same thing to mr glass

Mr. Glass is once again on my ignore list. Limitless rudeness can only be tolerated for so long.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Calling cameras Kodaks was common speech; calling cutting objects out and pasting in other objects to change the meaning of the presentation is not photography. One should invent a label for their work style, but it is not photography.

Graphic arts.

That works

 

[Sirius Glass]

are these images photographs ?
https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/lincoln-calhoun-composite/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fading-Away

and if not why not ?

Graphic Arts, not a photograph

 

[Sirius Glass]

Where do you draw the line between what constitutes changing it to something else and what doesn’t? Using a specific focal length Rendering an original colour scene in black and white? Letting originally visible dark or light details go to pure black or white? Burning/dodging? Contrast? Cropping? Alt processes? What is acceptable manipulation vs not?

When AA had the giant LP spotted out of his Winter Sunrise prints, how is that different than using a healing or cloning function in Photoshop?

Well to quote you:

I’m not arguing. I’m just explaining why you’re wrong.

Seriously or siriusly, as I stated before touching up is acceptable but changing the message or meaning of the composition departs photography and enters graphic arts, editorial statements et al.

 

[Arthurwg]

Boredom is a dangerous thing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Boredom is a dangerous thing.

The OP knew that a thread with this topic would stir the pot. It did.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

nothing is obvious that is why I asked for definitions... and I was hoping for a normal definition

When you asked for a definition, I thought you were asking for each person's working definition of what photography is, which obviously varies from person to person. Sky won't fall down if I consider scanning and digital manipulation as photography and photograms as non-photography. OTOH if one is looking for an overarching theory that explains why X is photography and Y isn't for various X and Y on the basis of a few invariant properties, then it's a difficult exercise which is best left to real students of philosophy IMHO.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When you asked for a definition, I thought you were asking for each person's working definition of what photography is, which obviously varies from person to person. Sky won't fall down if I consider scanning and digital manipulation as photography and photograms as non-photography. OTOH if one is looking for an overarching theory that explains why X is photography and Y isn't for various X and Y on the basis of a few invariant properties, then it's a difficult exercise which is best left to real students of philosophy IMHO.

Where you set the line is not where I set the line. And that is fine. Just do not make me eat your version, and I will not make you eat mine.

 

[removed account4]

When you asked for a definition, I thought you were asking for each person's working definition of what photography is, which obviously varies from person to person. Sky won't fall down if I consider scanning and digital manipulation as photography and photograms as non-photography. OTOH if one is looking for an overarching theory that explains why X is photography and Y isn't for various X and Y on the basis of a few invariant properties, then it's a difficult exercise which is best left to real students of philosophy IMHO.

yup working definition
but its helpful if when someone asks a question about it for clarification
that someone gets clarification seeing it doesn't really make sense .

 

[removed account4]

The OP knew that a thread with this topic would stir the pot. It did.

no pot to stir just asking for a definition of photography that makes sense and yours made no sense

Graphic Arts, not a photograph

as you stated

Calling cameras Kodaks was common speech

as stated the term graphic arts didn't exist it was common speech to call those images photographs. not sure why they should be called something different now. considering photographic historians, museums &c call them photographs as well..

Mr. Glass is once again on my ignore list. Limitless rudeness can only be tolerated for so long.

+1
thanks for reminding me!

 

[wiltw]

Where do you draw the line between what constitutes changing it to something else and what doesn’t? Using a specific focal length Rendering an original colour scene in black and white? Letting originally visible dark or light details go to pure black or white? Burning/dodging? Contrast? Cropping? Alt processes? What is acceptable manipulation vs not?

When AA had the giant LP spotted out of his Winter Sunrise prints, how is that different than using a healing or cloning function in Photoshop?

^
Indeed, across the continuum between 'photograph' and 'grapic art piece', where is the objective transition point that crosses a hard-to-define line betwen the two?!
Subjectively, I would ask

'Would you dare to post that piece in a 'photography forum' or keep it in a 'graphic arts forum', and stand up to the challenges by others who frequent that forum?"​

 

[BrianShaw]

The “limit line” might be plural. I suspect that if we could define that line it would be multivariate.

 

[Vaughn]

Photography is a subset of graphic arts -- why would one separate them?

Any attempt to separate should be between other subsets within the graphic arts...not with graphic arts itself.

 

[MattKing]

^
Indeed, across the continuum between 'photograph' and 'grapic art piece', where is the objective transition point that crosses a hard-to-define line betwen the two?!
Subjectively, I would ask

'Would you dare to post that piece in a 'photography forum' or keep it in a 'graphic arts forum', and stand up to the challenges by others who frequent that forum?"​

I wonder whether that is the appropriate question.
Is it more appropriate instead to view an artistic creation, and ask how much of its creation came from photographic techniques, and how much of it came from other, graphic arts techniques?
Much in this world would be best described as mixed media.

 

[BrianShaw]

That’s true, Vaughn. But if one is into being parochial one could discern a difference in the end product being more graphic art v more photographic.

Edit: oh... I just caught in to what you meant. I read it but didn’t immediately comprehend. Sounds reasonable!

 

[BrianShaw]

Much in this world would be best described as mixed media.

Yup... that’s what’s in the middle of the continuum.

Now we have 2 boundary conditions to quantify instead of just one.

 

[wiltw]

Photography is a subset of graphic arts -- why would one separate them?

Any attempt to separate should be between other subsets within the graphic arts...not with graphic arts itself.

Why categorize? for the same reason that we differentiate an Overture for a symphony orchestra is not the same as from a jazz piece by a trio...Yes, both aer 'music' but an Overture is a very different animal from a jazz riff. what appeals to one 'lover of music' might be hated by another 'lover of music'. The correct classification allows the two groups to each enjoy the aspect of music that appeals best.

The term 'graphic arts' is really two different terms. One is the all-inclusive grouping, differentiating graphic arts from musical arts from performing arts. The other use is 'the opposite of' photography.'

I have done 'graphic arts' in the distant past. I get continuing enjoyment from photography and the discussion of the production of photographs, but I derive no continued enjoyment from the discussion of producing 'graphic art'.

 

[Vaughn]

Why categorize? ...

My point exactly. Why draw the line? Define graphic arts anyway one wants -- two or three or four terms. A subjective decision. The graphic art within the general field of graphic arts is not (IMO) the polar opposite of photography, instead can be a blend of photographic elements along with other elements of the graphic arts - a collage or a montage.

Or any other way one wants to define it -- as long as both parties trying to communicate can do so.

 

[Sirius Glass]

... and yours made no sense

Neither does yours

 

[markjwyatt]

Photography is a subset of graphic arts -- why would one separate them?...

Transportation: Ships, airplanes, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, etc. They are all transportation. Why categorize them?

I guess because I like to be a bit more precise. If I go to Avis and ask to rent some transportation, and they give me a bicycle, do I have any right to complain?

 

[markjwyatt]

Yup... that’s what’s in the middle of the continuum...

Middle or Muddle?